What's a good, relatively cheap SSD? I want one for my Thinkpad.
Should I just get something from Crucial?
No sandforce please.
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Hot-NEW-Samsung-850-SSD-EVO-250GB-250G-SATA-III-Internal-Solid-State-Drive-Disk-MZ/32309168249.html?spm=2114.01010208.8.4.RYqeHP
$20 32gb samsung msata drives on ebay
$20 64gb sdxc card in the card slot for your music and porn
>>53624229
I don't have mSATA.
Regular SATA2 only.
>sata2
just get an old intel x25-m on ebay then, they're less than $50 for 160gb
>>53624271
>Buying a used SSD
>>53624287
http://www.ebay.com/itm/231855887458
problem?
>>53624194
Since there's already a thread. I know jack shit about SSDs(or HDDs for what's worth) but i'm planning to buy one.
>http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct120bx100ssd
or
>http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct240bx200ssd
Is that enough for a desktop? I thought of buying the 120 gb one(90 dollars where I live) since what I plan on using it for is windows and some software. But then I noticed the writing/reading speed was way less than the 240 one(120 dollars where I live) and honestly the price difference is not that huge, also 240 is just more useful than 120.
120
535 MB/s Read / 185 MB/s Write
240
540 MB/s Read / 490 MB/s Write
Is this relevant?
>>53624421
BX200 is shit
if you're putting this in a desktop with sata3, unlike the op who only has sata2, get a samsung evo
![snapshot_09.37_[2015.12.23_22.18.21].png](https://i.imgur.com/021ozNM.jpg "snapshot_09.37_[2015.12.23_22.18.21].png")
>>53624194
the ssd you posting it
>>53624194
>thinkpad
>ssd
>memeing this hard
OCZ drives are hella cheap and seem to be pretty reliable.
>>53624480
This one specifically.
>>53624421
How much to other budget SSDs like
>Sandisk Ultra II
>PNY CS2211
>Samsung 850 EVO
cost at your place?
>>53624295
Well yeah, why would I get a disk with limited number of cycles?
>>53624475
MX100 is discontinued.
>>53624479
Huh?
>>53624468
>>53624523
>Samsung evo
I searched for 850 EVO. Not available where I live.
I mean I could ask for it and it probably could be brought over but I don't think that'd be really nice to my pockets since I also need to buy the rest of the PC.
And about prices, everything is between 50 to 100% more than in the US depending where you buy.
>>53624636
>everything is between 50 to 100% more than in the US depending where you buy.
Holy fuck m80, where do you live? It's Australia, isnt't it?
>>53624610
for the same reason people buy old chinkpads: cheap and still good despite their age
>>53624673
Most parts in a laptop don't age as rapidly as SSDs.
Also, I bought my used Thinkpad because new Tablet PCs cost 3 times more.
>>53624610
Because the limit is fucking huge, that's why.
And since they've survived a year or so, it means that it's likely that the controller won't suddenly crap out and you'll get ample warning of wear fatigue. If you still care in 2026, that is.
It doesn't matter which SSD you buy, it's all the same unless you like to run benchmarks all day.
>>53624204
850 EVO has a comparable performance to MX200, same features, same MTBF and comparable price. Or am I missing something?
>>53624229
This anon knows what's up
1. Crucial MX200 / BX100
are fine SSDs for good price
2. DO NOT TAKE Crucial BX200, or any other TLC ssd except for...
3. Samsung 850 EVO
fine ssd for alright price, but its TLC, be aware of TLC and the drop of write speed if you run out of the write cache
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2998497/storage/tlc-nand-ssds-the-crippling-problem-storage-makers-dont-advertise.html
it has better warranty than crucial, and is generally tiny tiny bit faster
btw, I own crucial mx100 - 512GB and also samsung 850 evo, 500GB
I spread my sample size. I have crucial on my main desktop PC, as I trust it bit more
>>53624863
Thanks.
Why is TLC bad?
>>53624863
Why not BX 200?
>>53624870
its a way to store information
MLC store two bits in a cell
TLC store 3 bits in a cell
this provides cheaper production of larger cappacities but has drawbacks
one drawback in TLC in samsung 840 evo was that it lost charge over time easily
so people actually experienced reading speeds of non-ssd hard drives on old data
another is how it all works that it cant be as fast, but for huge majority of data it wont be noticible as you have there several GB large buffer that allows you to write at high speeds, only if you start writing 20GB files you notice a drop at some point... but SSDs are for 95% of us about the insanse access time and random read speeds... not writing encoded video...
but if you are going for transcoding, video rig, you really want MLC SSDs as your work drives
then comes the fact that samsung introduced TLC first and set bar extremely high. Every other introduction, either by sandisk or crucial was rather underwhelming, huge drops in performance compared the their MLC lines... while samsung somehow managed to keep their EVO line in good numbers..
>>53624894
read its reviews, its crucials first TLC and the drop in performance is large compared to MX200 and price difference is not worth it... if they would drop price more, it might be...
>>53624916
Thanks. Since this is a laptop, the SSD would be used for everything, so resistance to writes is important.
>>53624916
>Every other introduction, either by sandisk or crucial was rather underwhelming, huge drops in performance compared the their MLC lines
Because the 850evo uses 3d v-nand TLC while the others use regular planar TLC.
>>53624287
Depending on what you're buying it's not necessarily a bad idea. I bought a used Samsung 830 years ago, still works fine.
>>53624971
They already made SSDs in the middle ages?
>>53624935
>Thanks. Since this is a laptop, the SSD would be used for everything, so resistance to writes is important.
you really dont need to concerne yourself with write endurance
I just hope that everyone buys at least ~250GB
its really not worth it going for 128... it feels limiting and you dont get to use your ssd to its full extend because you just cant put there much
>>53624957
>Because the 850evo uses 3d v-nand TLC while the others use regular planar TLC.
nope, we could talk about TLC with samsung 840evo and there was no 3d nand, and yet it was the most popular ssd few years back because of price and performance... others strangely could not keep performance of their TLC models comparable.. samsung makes everything in their SSDs, from controller to nand, that plays to it..
but what 3d nands brought to the table with 850 evo is a very large production process -40nm, while before it was like 15-19 or something like this...
this huge nanometers hints that theres no need to worry about losing charge like evo 840 did and having old written data read speeds terribly slow...
>>53624971
Yeah, but with a used one it's a hit-or-miss.
>>53624863
Oh nice. Since you mentioned BX100 and BX200. >>53624421
Will the BX 200 affect me for I want(Windows and some software)?.
>>53624194
Get samsung evo 850. Its great for low power consumption. MX100 is kind of slow and mx200 is almost the same price. Aside from the evo stick to mlc memomory ssd. You can also look at adata sp920 its rebranded mx200. Also keep in mid that 128 and 256 gb ssd are slower than 512 and 960gb ssd. Get 512 gb if you can.
>>53625009
well first, you should not get bx200
if you got it already, well it affects you, speeds are not as high as there might have been
but its not that much of a difference, well at least until you try to write HUGE files on to the ssd and when it runs out of SLC cahce
you can see it in the pic
anyway, its not some cancer ssd or something, its just general opinion in reviews that if they want to offer it, it should be cheaper than others.. reflecting its not stellar performance...
as a normal windows drive its fine.. I would fucking love 1TB bx200 if it was cheap
>>53625035
I don't have it yet, which is why I was wondering between that and the bx100.
>>53625054
bx100 is a better choice
>>53625030
EVO draws 4.7W max, what does MX200 draw?
I won't be getting anything from ADATA ever.
What does size have to do with performance? Is it associated with GC? I was considering between 120/128 and 256/250, 512 seem outside of my price range.
>>53624194
BX100 is great, I've had one as my boot drive for about a month now.
I think the boot time is roughly 5 seconds
>>53625063
>I was considering between 120/128 and 256/250
THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION IS NOT THE BRAND AND MODEL
ITS THE SIZE
GET 250GB!!!!!
BX100 vs 850 EVO?
>>53625090
EVO
>>53624194
Can I put an SSD and HDD in a notebook?
>>53625090
Whats the price difference?
>>53625064
this desu
I have the same drive, works well
>>53625090
>samsung
>$CURRENT_YEAR
https://blog.algolia.com/when-solid-state-drives-are-not-that-solid/
>>53625116
you remove the dvdrom, buy plastic bracket for ssd to go there and you have now position for two 2.5" sata drives
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-laptop-upgrade-optical-bay,3102.html
>>53625116
If you have 2 bays, sure.
Alternatively, HDD in regular bay and SSD in M.2 or mSATA.
Alternatively, for Thinkpads and other laptops, you can also put a disk via docking station.
>>53624229
enjoy shit transfer rates i/o and it wont last very long
>>53624779
this i have a 2 year old 256gb adata ssd reliable donk of a drive not sure what rates its pulling down but i aint a benchmark queen
just buy whatever you can afford op
decent 120gb are 50 or more
256 are 120 or more
![74442[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/GJscdRH.png "74442[1].png")
>>53625063
Look at the reviews the 512 gb ones have better chips than the 250 gb and are ~20% faster. That is demolished on ssd witch cache but keep in mind that in heavy workloads cache cant keep up and the better chips come on top. Just get bigger ssd if you can. If you cant and have money for 250b ssd get evo 850, evos have the same speed it is not depending on size.
>>53625120
Negligible.
>>53625142
>just buy whatever you can afford op
SSDs with the same size have similar prices (in my country, about 50% for 120GB, 80$ for 250GB, 160$ for 512GB).
>>53625186
I would then go for the EVO, longer warranty, decent speeds
>>53625195
christ thats cheap
ausfag here so get ripped out the ass on ssd prices and everything else.
256/512 is the sweet spot i reckon
>>53625195
Meant 50$.
>>53625222
I'm in Poland. Weird, I though we're getting shit prices for electronics.
>>53625234
Really?
Look up staticice.com.au and holy shit do we get ripped
>390
>non x
>500aud
and for cheapest ssd
>512gb shit model
>212aud
Shits fucked m8
>>53625251
How much's 500 aud?
>>53625396
500 AUD - 380 USD
Google is your friend
>>53625396
about a google's worth
>>53624421
> less than 200mbs write
>>53625251
I'm sorry for that bro. We Europeans are all cucked more or less when buying electronics.
Prices in Poland: http://www.ceneo.pl/Dyski_SSD (1 zł = 3.8$).
>>53625251
That's fucking nothing, in here:
Gaming msi 4gb 380, 370 USD.
Gaming msi 390x, 656 USD.
4gb ASUS 960, 379 USD
Cheapest 970(Armor2x OC Msi), 509 USD.
Cheapest 980(OC gaming Msi), 781 USD.
EVGA 980 ti, 1023 USD.
>>53624229
SD cards are much slower than SSDs.
Even if you get the top SD card, you're still spending a fuckton of money and only getting around 300MB/s reads and 280MB/s writes (Lexar 2000x). A 64GB Lexar 2000x costs £100. Considering we're talking about a computer environment, and not a professional camcorder, I think it would be a much better to spend that £100 on an SSD.
Oh and a $20 64gb sd card will probably be slower than your HDD.
>>53625035
Where do I read about the long-winded technical details of TLC/MLC? Do I just hop from one article to the next
>>53624468
Lol no
This is what everyone should follow.
Bx100 if you are on a budget.
Mx200 if you are middleclass
850pro samsung if you have money to spend
950pro if you want that m. 2 love
All other disks are shit compared
>>53627275
>950pro if you want that m. 2 love
>tfw mini-itx Mobo
I fell for the meme
Mushkin 512GB Enhanced ECO2 MKNSSDEC512GB- 137 $
>>53627647
My dream is a 950pro m. 2 and that's it. No cables. No shit
>>53624916
What does density have to do with write speeds though? And isn't a faster cache actually faster than MLC (before the cache is exhausted)? 20GB+ writes are still pretty fast even after which goes back to my first question.
>>53627889
And how does samsung manage to avoid that kind of drop in write speeds whilst still using TLC
950 Pro
>>53627800
Got mine yesterday
>$350 or something close
>did not come with a screw to secure it in place
Had to use the screw from my other m.2 drive because I'd rather it die than my new baby
>>53624863
Shit brah in my country are literally giving away the crucial bx200 it is half the price of other SSDs of the same capacity. I don't know if i would buy. I have a 1tb 5400rpm and it's so fucking slow. I work with VMs and and a SSD its way better than my actual drive. What do you say. Should I take the crucial bx200 480gb?
Normie here, figured this is the place I should ask...
Is it worth buying an SSD if all I do is play videya and browse? I was planning on getting an ssd for the OS and a regular hdd for games/data since prices are aweful in SyrupLand. I can't figure out what I need and/or if I need it.
crucials are shit on the L thinkpads (they BSOD 4-5x a day), tried on tons of them (and several ssds, all same bug)... oyher than that, crucials were based in anything else i tried them
Get a 120GB Sandisk SSD, cheap, reliable, and fast.
But don't SSDs slow down over time, anons?
>>53628029
SSD will cause your games to load faster.
>>53628019
Like it says in the article, write performance drops considerably, even performing worse than a RAID0 USB3.0 setup for large writes (20GB+) significantly. The Savage/HyperX is better than most SSDs in this regard. For most write operations (e.g. 10gb or less) it's not that big a problem. Get a MX200 if you can imo, especially if you install VM's often. If not, it doesn't really matter I suppose.
>>53628060
Older ones like the evo 840. Evo 850 and above don't have that problem.
>>53628060
Not really, they do have a limited no. times they can write, so they will die, but the amount of data that can go thourgh them is very large so it isnt a problem for normal users
http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
>>53628060
>No sandforce please.
>>53628133
so basically they're still going to just die outright after a certain amount of normal use...and people are just buying them up like hotcakes...lol
>>53628136
Sandforce is to prolong endurance. Essentially it's a trade-off between performance in the long run and the device's lifespan.
>>53628179
2.1 petabytes
Newer are even better
HDDs have a higher chance of failing at any time
>falling for ssd is a meme meme
I have an older Kingston HyperX 3k, would it be worth it to upgrade to a faster drive?
>>53628196
Sandforce controllers are known for high irrecoverable failure rate.
All of my hard drives have lasted years and years, undergone tons of formats and windows installs etc... (probably some accidental blunt force too) and I've come across 1980s drives still in good working condition, just plugged 'em in and used 'em for the novelty of it all. Still usable now.
And you're trying to justify buying an SSD that is made to die and be replaced, for prices that are still realistically, totally ridiculous, is that about right?
>>53628327
>drives that can handle petabytes and petabytes of data before failure, way more than the average user puts the drive through
>can last years and years with normal use
>no moving parts unlike hdds
Do people seriously think ssds still aren't reliable?
>>53628327
I'm compromising endurance for performance, yes.
>>53628388
True, the fact is, I have no idea how much data I've moved through these drives in question;but I'd wager it was quite a lot over the course of years.
>>53628425
What about the hybrid drives?
>>53628467
I haven't though about them. Any good ones?
>>53628467
>What about the hybrid drives?
Waste of money. Just get an ssd+hdd
>>53628513
Expensive then? Should have guessed.
Personally I'm most curious about server/enterprise-based 15RPM drives. Frikkin 128mb cache and 12Gbps interfaces. Seems like a possible SSD alternative.
>>53628550
I doubt they would get close to ssd speed
>>53628513
Pretty hard to do on a laptop w/o optical drive bay and msata/m2.
>>53628582
Maybe not the higher-end ones...but 128mb caches and 12Gbps? Shit sounds pretty hardcore on top of 15krpm
>>53625002
Pretty sure only the pro uses a big process.
>>53627964
Fucken nice man. Remember to ass heatsinks to it for extra oomph
